speculawyer
Member
Meh . . . this year finally brought some cheap but decent Blu-Ray players, so perhaps non gamers are buying those instead of the PS3.ViperVisor said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Blu-Ray sales in Q1 2009 more than double compared to last year...
- Thread starter Teddman
- Start date
- Status
speculawyer
Member
Yep. Even when you can get HD DD, it is 720p or highly compressed 1080i. The ISPs are not too keen on that and it will probably get limited. So Blu-Ray is going to be the choice for quality unless you have fiber into your home.Phobophile said:
speculawyer
Member
TheExodu5 said:
Yes and no. Blu-Ray is growing a bit too slow for their liking. And Blu-Ray is going to be the end of the re-releases for a while. Don't expect anything better than 1080p for many years. Yes, there will be some attempts at higher resolutions, but they'll never gain mass adoption since they are not broadcast standards (or closely related to broadcast standards).
BoboBrazil
Member
I still don't get all the blu-ray hate. I think most of it is from xbox 360 fanboys, but it seems like there is a lot of hate for this format for really no reason.
Phobophile said:
From today: Cablevision boosts speeds up to 101Mb/s
Cablevision services the biggest metro area in North America.
speculawyer said:
Actually, I'm pretty confident that we'll see 1080p24 as a broadcast standard for movie content.
It actually is = or less than 1080i60 in terms of bandwidth ...
So I think there will eventually be some nice traction between 'high end' broadcasts, and BD ... if only in terms of resolution.
Onix said:
Oh, I'm not saying the premium isn't worth it. I'm just giving reasons why it's in their interest for Blu-Ray to succeed. They will ensure Blu-Ray succeeds at any cost. DVD players will eventually be phased out for similar cost Blu-Ray players, which will force the transition. It happened with HDTVs, it'll happen with Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray will be sold until DD takes over altogether (this is still quite a ways off, imo).
Myself, even though I'm a huge audio/videophile, I anxiously await the takeover of DD. I actually can't stand media DD in it's current form. Until a service like Steam emerges, I won't buy into it. The reason I'm anxious is because of the convenience of the whole thing. I own the complete series of Seinfeld on DVD, but I now put all the avis on a local media server and play them off my PS3. Now we're seeing a lot more media server devices being released, and I'm quite anxious to see everything get integrated in time. I'm also anxious for cable TV to become obsolete (it's coming, folks!).
Until then, I will basque in the glory of awesome video and audio with Blu-Ray. Just got the Panasonic AE3000 projector last week, and am loving it!
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
BoboBrazil said:
There's just something about bandwidth limited, mostly rental only, heavily compressed high definition microblocking induced digital distributing that can't be beat!
Agreed ... though in my hope, DD will not take over, but be a nice optionTheExodu5 said:
I agree on most points, but your opening line. I do not anxiously await a takeover of DD until many questions are answered. You stated that you're a huge A/Vphile, so how can you look forward to such a takeover, until there is confirmation that the product will be at least as good as BD?
If you can't say that, you certainly are NOT an A/Vphile. The future I expect (and hope for), is DD and physical media co-existing. Both have their places, it really depends on the users' wants.
Please note, I'm not some sort of BD zealot that doesn't like DD. Yes, I have a BD player (2 actually), but I also regularly engage in DD when it makes sense. I have a 4TB server (that is growing), and regularly stream movies and shows to the TV's I own. That involves both physical media, and DD (I've utilized Amazon, PSN, Hulu, Netflix, etc, for DD).
I'm simply saying, don't pray for a time when all options equal going backwards in quality.
Onix said:
Okay, I should say I "conditionally" await a takeover. I award great value to the audio/video quality, so if DD never evolves to meeting current Blu-Ray standards, then I rather have the Blu-Ray option. I award next to no value to the physical product, though.
I'm talking more like 10 years in the future, when media servers take over everything else.
The current implementations are unacceptable. For movies, 720p and sub-standard bitrates. For music, sub-standard bitrates and DRM. For both, a huge lack of a decent downloadable service. I need a service that will let me redownload my media as often as I want with no restrictions (hello, Steam!).
I'm being hopeful for a proper future iteration of a DD distribution service.
Of course, this all rests on the state of the the internet. Current bandwidth and datacaps are not adequate for such services.
Then we agreeTheExodu5 said:
Well, like it or not, I like a backup option. If DD gives me one, and offers easy ways to playback on a variety of devices, then I'm cool.
Obviously, the criteria I've stated is quite robust. DD needs to be that way, or fuck it all to hell.
I personally have a media server in excess of 4TB. What you are describing has basically nothing to do with owning a media server. My criteria needs to be met before DD is viable IMO.
Agreed. If there is any chance of a 'good' takeover, these issues and more need to be met.
That's fine ... just don't have blind faith towards it, and give up physical media. If so, you'll be in a world of hurt.
Yes, plus a hundred other things.
There's nothing I find desirable about digital download movies. Maybe if I could select rentals from a mammoth library of classic and obscure titles... But that's not the situation. There's little I can get by download that I couldn't find in one of the fine rental establishments in my fair city, and I'd get it faster, and likely at higher quality. As for purchasing digital content online, no thank you. On top of the reasons above the storage situation and unfriendly DRM make it a non-starter.
Netflix Watch Instantly is getting there...Evlar said:
Higher quality, yes. Faster? No. I can queue up JCVD on Netflix in ten seconds, a title not yet available on DVD. There are many movies, mostly older obscure titles, that are available on DD but not DVD. Of course, the inverse is also true.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Netflix Instant is worse that SD broadcast TV. Ugh.
No way, unless you have some kind of godly SD broadcast.Ignatz Mouse said:
I don't see how you can say that when it's generally better than most digital cable SD channels, most of the programming supports anamorphic widescreen, there's an increasing amount of HD programming, etc.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Teddman said:
Maybe your cable is worse than mine, but the macroblocking artifacts on the Netflix Instant movies I've watched has been very, very bad. And I am not all that fussy about these things given that the service is a freebie.
Phobophile said:
Seriously, until we get really fast speeds where you can download and start watching a full HD movie(at the highest quality possible) in 5 mins or less and be allowed infinite redownloads so that your limited hdd space doesn't limit the amount of movies you can have, DD will never replace physical media.
Sadly, there's too much greed involving major corporations for any of that to be possible. Even if DD services and movie studios allowed infinite redownloads and download speeds were fast enough to download a 1080p HD movie in less than 5 mins, like you mentioned already, your ISP would fuck you on the bandwidth.
I guess it depends on how big your screen, the dot quality you get, and on the movie, since encoding varies widely. Starz movies seem to be worse than the Netflix ones. But I don't notice a ton of macroblocking and haven't heard that complaint much about Watch Instantly. It tends to be a bit "soft" when it's lower quality rather than blocky.Ignatz Mouse said:
koam said:
I don't understand the anger here.
Fuck high quality audio visual presentation?
Fuck material discs in general?
Fuck blue lasers?
I love the convenience of DD for movie RENTALS but the limitations it imposes for purchases are too many for me to hope it becomes the standard in its current form: lower quality AV, DRM tied to an account, inability to lend movies out or resell them.
DarkJediKnight
Member
koam said:
Enjoy your shitty video and audio quality. :lol
The $487 million figure includes cable and satellite video-on-demand, which account for the vast majority of revenues.
Those pay-per-view/VOD services have always been popular; thanks in good deal to porn. Which is the reason why DD's growth has been only 19%. None of this is surprising.
It should be noted, Pay-per-view/Video-on-Demand and DVD have survived cohesively since the very beginning.
Those pay-per-view/VOD services have always been popular; thanks in good deal to porn. Which is the reason why DD's growth has been only 19%. None of this is surprising.
It should be noted, Pay-per-view/Video-on-Demand and DVD have survived cohesively since the very beginning.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It took iTunes years (like, about 10) to even get 20% of the CD market. And that's with decent fidelity and a lot more convenience than DD. I'm not sure why people are so dead certain that it will take over the world *fast*. I'm sure it will dominate eventually, but it seems like everybody wants to say "I called it" early and get waaaaay ahead of themselves (and reality).
iTunes looks OK, VOD looks OK, Netflix is abysmal and Hulu is limited to very old movies the likes of which air on Sunday afternoon cable and have virtually no market power on their own.
iTunes looks OK, VOD looks OK, Netflix is abysmal and Hulu is limited to very old movies the likes of which air on Sunday afternoon cable and have virtually no market power on their own.
I have a 42" screen and the Netflix stuff looks usually on par with a dvd or so (4 bars SD, 4 bars HD, 6mb downstream). HOWEVER, I've had network hiccups that caused the stream to dump to what I assume is 3 bars and once to 2 bars, and the 3 bar was basically TV SD and 2 bars was very blocky and IMO unwatchable.Teddman said:
it also should be noted that obviously VOD is talking about SD VOD primarily. There is a much larger market for SD VOD than HD VOD. HD VOD revenue is absolutely non-existent compared to Blu-ray and will likely remain so for quite some time. Of course SD VOD is going to eclipse BD. Most SD VOD systems are practically near real-time these days and costs are insanely cheap (as low as $2 for a download).
With that being said, good show for Blu-ray. you're already starting to see the shift happening now in advertising with "Buy it today on Blu-ray and DVD". It was the same way for DVD. First it started out as "Buy it now on video" with no mention of DVD. Then for larger releases it was "Buy it now on video and DVD". finally for most releases it was "But it now on DVD and video." Well, we are at that last point now with Blu-ray. My guess it you'll see the first title or two this holiday season sell more copies on BD than on DVD. And by next holiday most new releases will likely sell more copies on BD than DVD.
As for BD catching up to SD VOD, it probably won't happen. SD VOD is simply way to convenient, and the people using it obviously don't care about picture quality. On the same hand it will likely be quite a few years yet for 1080p VOD to catch up to BD in sales. DirecTV is making it pretty convenient with their new Top Movies 1080p selection, but even there it's only like 5-8 titles and really nothing older than a couple of months, whereas blu-ray has the clear advantage of offering EVERY movie for sale no matter how old. and as long as 1080p VOD is nowhere near real-time (DirecTV over cable right now takes about 5-6 hours to download a 1080p movie) I don't see it catching up in sales.
With that being said, good show for Blu-ray. you're already starting to see the shift happening now in advertising with "Buy it today on Blu-ray and DVD". It was the same way for DVD. First it started out as "Buy it now on video" with no mention of DVD. Then for larger releases it was "Buy it now on video and DVD". finally for most releases it was "But it now on DVD and video." Well, we are at that last point now with Blu-ray. My guess it you'll see the first title or two this holiday season sell more copies on BD than on DVD. And by next holiday most new releases will likely sell more copies on BD than DVD.
As for BD catching up to SD VOD, it probably won't happen. SD VOD is simply way to convenient, and the people using it obviously don't care about picture quality. On the same hand it will likely be quite a few years yet for 1080p VOD to catch up to BD in sales. DirecTV is making it pretty convenient with their new Top Movies 1080p selection, but even there it's only like 5-8 titles and really nothing older than a couple of months, whereas blu-ray has the clear advantage of offering EVERY movie for sale no matter how old. and as long as 1080p VOD is nowhere near real-time (DirecTV over cable right now takes about 5-6 hours to download a 1080p movie) I don't see it catching up in sales.
Because Hulu, new this year I believe, Netflix's DD new within the last year, year and a half i believe. Itunes is the only one thats been doing DD video for more than a year. Meanwhile Cable/Satellite VOD/PPV has been around for 15 years.Teddman said:
iTunes sold more movies than Blu-Ray in 2007, so they could be a significant piece. They've been selling millions of video/movies for awhile now.captive said:
Hulu's actually been live since August 2007, Netflix Watch Instantly since around that time as well. So pretty much all of these services have existed prior to the period that's being compared to for that 19% increase (Q1 2008), though most of them have gone through a boost in profile over the last year.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Zachack said:
It may well be an artifact of my internet speed, but I'm sure my case is quite common.
Teddman said:
Are you really honestly trying to misrepresent that one line into iTunes/Hulu/XBL/PSN/etc are somehow twice as large as Blu-ray?
Let's use some common sense here, iTunes, which is biggest player in DD, sells/rents in the millions of video content since inception, Comcast sells Billions. It's safe to assume; Cox, DirectTV, DISH, etc also do equally well. DD is DD, whether from cable, satellite, FIOS, or the internet, but let's keep things into perspective. There is no evidence to suggest that internet-based movie distribution has surpassed the existing multi-billion dollar satellite/cable services.
Pay-per-view/VOD have has been around, and people watch movie in a variety of ways, Netflix, HBO, TV, rentals, etc. Let's grow up, its not an either/or situation. People still buy DVDs, and they still will buy Blu-rays, and I'm sure they will continue to use VOD services as well.
Not sure what you're on about, Dr.No. Digital Distribution as a whole IS outgrossing Blu-Ray 2:1, but that wasn't what my last reply was about.
I'm simply saying that non-Cable/Satellite services are increasing their share of the DD pie, they've been around longer than a year (key point in captive's reply), and now it could be a 50/50 split or something short of a 'vast majority.' At this point, we don't have the data to make the call.
I'm simply saying that non-Cable/Satellite services are increasing their share of the DD pie, they've been around longer than a year (key point in captive's reply), and now it could be a 50/50 split or something short of a 'vast majority.' At this point, we don't have the data to make the call.
Doctor No bringing the real talk to this thread.
It is also possible for all markets to coexist having a different consumer base.
For example, my parents aren't big into purchasing any movies since they only watch them once. They'll use the cable on demand service to rent and watch 3 to 4 movies a month. This is the consumer base the cable companies want to reach. It also doesn't hurt they get two coupons every month for a free movie rental with their cable service. This also makes me question how feasible and how profitable the on demand service truly is. The credit doesn't take place until the coupon is sent in with the cable bill, so the original charge is made and acted as a regular sale. So the cable companies can consider these purchases as additional revenue, yet they paid the bill for this rental.
It is also possible for all markets to coexist having a different consumer base.
For example, my parents aren't big into purchasing any movies since they only watch them once. They'll use the cable on demand service to rent and watch 3 to 4 movies a month. This is the consumer base the cable companies want to reach. It also doesn't hurt they get two coupons every month for a free movie rental with their cable service. This also makes me question how feasible and how profitable the on demand service truly is. The credit doesn't take place until the coupon is sent in with the cable bill, so the original charge is made and acted as a regular sale. So the cable companies can consider these purchases as additional revenue, yet they paid the bill for this rental.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Souldriver said:
Doubling every year *is* exponential growth, if it happens each year.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Teddman said:
Is this substantiated anywhere, and is the matter of degree at all clear?
All in all, I'm not sure what's meant to be asserted in the OP, except that sales are up for everything but DVD.
Check the post you quoted, there's a part about not having the data to make the call.
The point of the topic is that Blu-Ray sales are up 100%... And yet Digital Downloads are still outgrossing them by more than twice as much.
It's really a wake-up call for people here who said Digital Delivery would never approach Blu-Ray levels of adoption or profitability.
The point of the topic is that Blu-Ray sales are up 100%... And yet Digital Downloads are still outgrossing them by more than twice as much.
It's really a wake-up call for people here who said Digital Delivery would never approach Blu-Ray levels of adoption or profitability.
- Status